Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Cottesmore to close

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Cottesmore to close

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 15th December 2009 | 20:29
  #41 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 57
From: Anglia
It's not my R.A.F. anymore, but...

Why can't the smaller places be closed and moved to the airfields? - and don't quote tradition. The RAF (traditionally) only had bad habits.

Wyton has started the job - close that airfield - and build on it! Just think of all the office space you could put there!

There is no reason anyone really needs to be "based" in London, or anywhere in particular, anymore. Move 'em out!

Make 'em live "Life in a Blue Suit" properly!
Rigga is offline  
Reply
Old 15th December 2009 | 20:31
  #42 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 70
Likes: 1
From: uk
Our good old boss sold us out, yes more than likely. I wonder how many miles the Shar actually had in it. I'm not trying to catch anybody out or bait people into saying anything, just a bit ticked off with seeing the cuts that really have only just started, what and where next. In 10 years it will just be seen as the evolution of the SH force, gonna tick a lot of people off though. PS my overalls are a darker shade of blue!!
Misformonkey is offline  
Reply
Old 15th December 2009 | 20:31
  #43 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 356
Likes: 11
From: The sky mainly
I'll wager that within a month of it closing, it'll be renamed Rutland Barracks, so I doubt if the locals would notice much.
My guess is that it will become an extension of H.M.P. Ashwell or H.M.P. Small Local River if they plan to house sex offenders there.
Sky Sports is offline  
Reply
Old 15th December 2009 | 21:27
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 52
Likes: 9
From: Where I rest my head!
Angry

This news made me registered and set-up a forum at RAF Cottesmore - Powered by vBulletin this PM.

Sad day for Cottesmore.
WildRover is offline  
Reply
Old 15th December 2009 | 23:12
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: EGXJ
Isn't it obvious, the only reason the RAF want to get rid of the Harrier is to see off the RN? CAS would dance a jig if everyone in Rutand was on the dole. Forget the fact that the GR9 is a world class platform, let's be petty and small minded about the whole thing...

They say in the Air Force a landing's OK
If the pilot can get out and still walk away
but in the Fleet Air Arm the prospects are dim
if the landing's piss poor and the pilot can't swim.
ZoomBoot is offline  
Reply
Old 15th December 2009 | 23:46
  #46 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,324
Likes: 14
From: Lincs
Misformonkey

Misformonkey,
Have a read through the operational updates for GR4 CAS (Telic and Herrick)

RAF Operational Update - Ops Update - 20 Sep 2009

RAF Operational Update - Ops Update - 13 Sep 09

RAF - 904 Expeditionary Air Wing

RAF Operational Update - Ops Update - Nov 2009

GR4 CAS role during Telic

RAF Operational Update - Op Update 08 June 2008

GR4 preparation for Herrick.

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Training and Adventure | RAF Tornado crews train for Afghanistan with US Army

TJ
TEEEJ is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 00:23
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Berkshire
Mmmmm, MOD is broke and easy option to save pennies is to accelerate OSD for HAR seeing as it has now (just) completed its operational role. Bet the Flt Air Arm are sh***ing bricks at the mo though. Interesting that WIT saved over CTS even though latter is in poor condition and there is case law ref compensation for overflying private residences that will undoubtedly be revisited at some point in the future. Watch out KIS/LOS I say - MR2 loss might see GR4 move to former and close the latter, or else both may end up closing. Nimrod Fleet you have my sympathies, esp after H-C Report.

DTR 1 - another interesting scenario. If unaffordable then we may keep Cosford and Halton may be back in the melting pot for disposal - it is owned outright; no tenant issues to sort out - mag-to-grid I reckon.

Roll on SDR / FDR - bin heavy artillery, para, elements of cav and other outdated capabilities and lets equip ourselves for scenarios that actually recognise the cold war ended 20 years ago in time for Korea2.

Suggest this sin't the time to test the PVR button on JPA - no 2nd chances; no questions asked.

Per Ardua
The Cakemeister is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 01:53
  #48 (permalink)  
Community Builder
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
I don't think that anyone would disagree that the RAF has more real estate than it needs
How about too few airplanes for the real estate it has?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 03:26
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
From: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Why can't the smaller places be closed and moved to the airfields?
In a large part they already have been.

Have a look at most MOBs now and you will see that they contain numerous 'londger' units that hav been crammed - many of whom have relocated the smaller units now closed. Most of those that remain are due to geography (such as the remote radar heads).

As for London apart from Main Building (which is thinning out rapidly) we only really have Northolt left into which lots of other organisations from smaller units (Uxbridge, Bently Priory, Mill Hill) are being crammed.

As for ZoomBot's Wittering 'REMFs who contribute so little to Defence' (yes, I'll bite). I'll let you go and tell an EOD operator from 5131(BD) Sqn that. I suggest you do that just after he or she has walked back from disarming an IED - I'm sure the comment would go down well.
Climebear is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 05:12
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
From: in my combat underpants
How else would the RAF manage to employ so many REMFs who contribute so little to defence?
Whatever you do, there are many based at Wittering who have spent far more time than you being very, very useful on ops.
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 06:06
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
From: Up where we belong
Sorry guys but I really can't understand all the angst, CTS was going to close in 2018 anyway and that was announced years ago. That we have the "on-the-bus, off-the-bus" situation of moving the Harriers back down the road at massive expense is, for me the most frustrating bit as they are unlikely to be there for more than 4/5 years before finally being retired.
NUFC1892 is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 07:42
  #52 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 587
Likes: 38
From: Their Target for Tonight
Zoomboot,

If you are a Serviceman and so operationally ignorant that you can make such moronic statements about what the guys and girls at WIT do, then I suggest you have little to add to this forum!
Red Line Entry is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 07:57
  #53 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 678
Likes: 56
From: York
I just cannot see how they will be able to move all of the needed facilities into Wittering. The old 1 (f) hangar is not the full length version and we always struggled when either 3 or 4 visited. Money is going to be have to be spent on at least one hangar to supplement whats already there....... and where will the incumbents using the hangers at the moment go?

And I'm amazed it hasn't already been asked on the forum.......... do we loose an RAF or Navy Sqn?

As for all that money spent on the Harrier servicing facility at Cot and where that is going to be relocated.....................
dctyke is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 09:24
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: EGXJ
Climebear - VERY good point.

Red Line Entry - dry your precious eyes.
ZoomBoot is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 11:18
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: The High Seas
Who Gets The Chop

I've heard on the grapevine its 4(AC) for the axe, possibly as soon as Apr 10, and the RN won't get the 2nd Sqn within NSW (i.e. the 800/801 split). JFH then left as a 50/50 front line split between 1(F) and 800 NAS with a joint OCU.

Given his Bob-ness clearly stated in the House yesterday that what's left has been retained for Carrier operations, I predict some interesting times ahead!!!
Alpha Whiskey is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 11:22
  #56 (permalink)  
Cunning Artificer
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
We have had a need for more AT and rotary for a long time
That'll be the reason for the proposed closure of Lyneham then?

Bet the Flt Air Arm are sh***ing bricks at the mo though.
Don't see why. They're still going to get their floating airfields.
Blacksheep is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 15:03
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
From: Falmouth
Has anyone yet received a good answer as to why the RAF would want to close Cottesmore?
vecvechookattack is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 16:30
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 68
Likes: 4
From: Where ever the wind takes me
GR9 v's GR4

Not wanting to piss anyone off, or upset anyone....

The guys on the ground, and by that i mean the guys who give you the "splash, stand by for BDA" call (if you dont know what it means, dont worry). If we had our say about the chopping of a harrier or a tornado sqn? Sorry but scrap the entire tornado fleet and give us more harriers! Boys in Afghan...the harrier is king!!! (on par with an A10... sorry guys the 30mm evens it up a bit).

Feel free to rip me to shreds!
andy148 is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 17:25
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
From: in my combat underpants
That'll be the reason for the proposed closure of Lyneham then?
Oh my! Are you telling me that we can't fly C-130 if it isn't from Lyneham? Quick! Tell someone! We MUST not let them go to Brize where many people believe their ability to take of and land again is not hampered by the airfield being in a different county!
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Reply
Old 16th December 2009 | 17:47
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,817
Likes: 1
From: Hotel Gypsy
I suspect that there is more than the odd Spec aircrew/PAS type with his nice little country home who would agree with such an argument.

"Sorry, you can only fly C130s from Lyneham as we need to hill to help us gain height."
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Reply


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.